I'll be the first to admit that I have a limited understanding of this. As I understand it what is meant by Globalization is the growing homogeneous aspect of life around the world. This is due to huge corporations that have a great deal of money. Two that are targets of the anti-globalization movement are McDonalds and Nike. The idea is that their profits are made on the backs of poor sweat-shop employees that are oppressed and exploited for that profit.

In the past many of the people who have railed against this were young un-employed middle and upper-class college students.

In some ways I can understand their position however I think the position requires a very US centric view of life. Are the people poor? By our standards, yes. By the standards of their country, probably not, or a definite no. Are they oppressed? By the standards of their country probably not, or a definite no.

While the Bible takes a very firm position on the oppression and/or exploitation of people. I don't know that what we consider oppression and exploitaion is the same thing that third-world residents think of when they think of oppression and exploitation. One could arguably say that they are being given a very nice economic opportunity. I think Jesus would think that is a good thing.

You haven't heard about globalization because you live in such a hick place. Maybe you should get out a little more often.

I think globalization (at least for the anti- crowd) is just the umbrella phrase for the the process of commerce infecting every aspect of life and doing so on an international scale.

A lot of it has to do with complaints about economic inequality and social justice. So for some in the anti-globalization movement, it's just the haven they've found now that socialism isn't chic anymore.

Other aspects of it involve the frequent paving over of local life and its cultural forms by fairly monolithic commercial entities like McDonalds and Wal-Mart, and the ethos of modern capitalism which at times treats everything as if it were for sale.

Warning - long rant ahead.

The whole anti-globalization irritates me greatly, especially coming from Christians.

It seems to have three main themes:
1) A belief that corporations exploit developing country labor since they earn less that US workers.
2) A belief that US culture should not be exported, so that local cultures and heritages can be preserved, regardless of whether such cultures are beneficial or not to their citizens.
3) A belief that employing persons in developing countries robs US citizens of jobs and should be blocked to protect US labor.

There are likely other aspects to it as well, but to me it gets it all wrong. If we have seen anything in the past 50 years, it is that trade helps lift poor people most, while aid typically leaves them impoverished generation after generation. Over 300 million Chinese have been lifted out of poverty in the past two decades by US trade with China without aid, yet most anti-globalization types apparently would prefer those 300 million people to still be poor peasants. Meanwhile, we keep all sorts of trade barriers up on agriculture commodities and spend billions on ineffective aid and charity to Africa, and have rock stars and politicians tell us the main emphasis should be sending even more aid.

It is like the old 'Teach a man to fish' adage in reverse. Anti-globalization advocates seem not to want to teach poor people to fish or allow them to sell fish to us, because if we do, they might become better fisherman than us and actually get out of poverty and not need our aid anymore to survive.

Perversely, they romanticize many aspects of inferior cultures that poor people are desperate to escape, while simultaneously infantalizing poor people by keeping them dependent on our 'big-hearted' aid.

OK. Properly speaking, "globalization" is shorthand for "the globalization of the economy"--i.e., the increasing shift from an agglomeration of national economies to a single global economy (which actually isn't, really, since there's still a fair bit of the world outside it, but . . .), thanks to multinational corporations, multinational entities, multinational structures (most notably the Internet), and the like. The other stuff mentioned is tied in, but this is the core.

And on my best understanding, Evan's basically right.

Thomas Friedman's books "The World is Flat" and "The Lexus and the Olive Tree" are good primers in globalization. From Wikipedia:

The Lexus and the Olive Tree is a 1999 book by Thomas L. Friedman that posits that the world is currently undergoing two struggles: the drive for prosperity and development, symbolized by the Lexus, and the desire to retain identity and traditions, symbolized by the olive tree. He claims he came to this realization while eating a sushi box lunch on a Japanese bullet train after visiting a Toyota factory, and reading an article about conflict in the Middle East.

Perhaps the most famous theory presented in this book is the Golden Arches Theory of Conflict Prevention, which states: "No two countries that both had McDonald's had fought a war against each other since each got its McDonald's".

In the 2000 edition of the book, Friedman answered criticism of his theory as follows:

"I was both amazed and amused by how much the Golden Arches Theory had gotten around and how intensely certain people wanted to prove it wrong. They were mostly realists and out-of-work Cold Warriors who insisted that politics, and the never-ending struggle between nation-states, were the immutable defining feature of international affairs, and they were professionally and psychologically threatened by the idea that globalization and economic integration might actually influence geopolitics in some very new and fundamental ways." (The Lexus and the Olive Tree, 2000 edition, page 251)

THE WORLD IS FLAT
Friedman on a journey to Bangalore, India, realizes that globalization has changed core economic concepts.[1] Due to this discovery, he suggests that the world is "flat" in the sense that the competitive playing fields between industrial and emerging market countries have been leveled. Friedman recounts many examples in which companies in India and China are becoming part of large global complex supply chains. These companies provide service representatives. He recalls seeing American companies such as Dell, AOL, and Microsoft using teleoperators who are paid very low wages.

Friedman lists ten "flatteners" that have leveled the global playing field:

#1: Collapse of Berlin Wall--11/'89: The event not only symbolized the end of the Cold war, it allowed people from other side of the wall to join the economic mainstream. (11/09/1989)
#2: Netscape: Netscape and the Web broadened the audience for the Internet from its roots as a communications medium used primarily by 'early adopters and geeks' to something that made the Internet accessible to everyone from five-year-olds to eighty-five-year olds. (8/9/1995)
#3: Workflow software: The ability of machines to talk to other machines with no humans involved. Friedman believes these first three forces have become a “crude foundation of a whole new global platform for collaboration.”
#4: Open sourcing: Communities uploading and collaborating on online projects. Examples include open source software, blogs, and Wikipedia. Friedman considers the phenomenon "the most disruptive force of all."
#5: Outsourcing: Friedman argues that outsourcing has allowed companies to split service and manufacturing activities into components, with each component performed in most efficient, cost-effective way.
#6: Offshoring: Manufacturing's version of outsourcing.
#7: Supply chaining: Friedman compares the modern retail supply chain to a river, and points to Wal-Mart as the best example of a company using technology to streamline item sales, distribution, and shipping.
#8: Insourcing: Friedman uses UPS as a prime example for insourcing, in which the company's employees perform services--beyond shipping--for another company. For example, UPS itself repairs Toshiba computers on behalf of Toshiba. The work is done at the UPS hub, by UPS employees.
#9: In-forming: Google and other search engines are the prime example. "Never before in the history of the planet have so many people-on their own-had the ability to find so much information about so many things and about so many other people", writes Friedman.
#10: "The Steroids": Personal digital devices like mobile phones, iPods, personal digital assistants, instant messaging, and voice over IP or VOIP.

The Unflat World

Friedman acknowledges there are some 3 billion people in places like rural India, rural China, and Africa who still live in an "unflattened" world.

"Over 300 million Chinese have been lifted out of poverty in the past two decades by US trade with China without aid."

I'd like to see stats on this. Admittedly, I haven't payed attention to the globalization debate since 2004 or so, but when last I checked China seemed to be developing a two-tier economy, with most people still well below the $2/day international poverty line while it gains the second largest number of billionaires (behind America.)


However, there's another objection to globalization, whose prime proponent I would name if his book wasn't in storage in a box in another country from me. Basically the argument goes that globalization represents the growing hegemony of a small number of publically traded companies whose only purpose (legally, even) is to make money, and who do so by manufacturing demand for products rather than manufacturing products for demand.

Perfect example: Budweiser, who makes crappy beer but has the world's largest private psychological think-tank, which generates its extraordinarily successful advertisements.

I'm not saying that everyone should be a crusader against globalization, but I am saying that at least this thread of the anti-globalization movement has very much one of the same enemies of any honest Christian--the greed-fueling ideology of instant gratification of manufactured needs that we see everywhere saying the most ridiculous things.

c.f. Lewis' comments (quoted here, just a few days ago) about the manufactured "ideal" of feminine beauty that Screwtape was so enthusiastic about.

You guys are awfully smart - thanks for all the info! Very interesting stuff.

I am such a Blinkling. Not a Thinkling.

I was thinking globalization meant I'd be saying a pledge of allegiance to the UN someday.

CR, I agree with the theological critique of the soul of capitalism, whether national or global--in general, anyway, if not with all the variants. I do not, however, agree with the anti-globalization response to that critique. A better approach, at least from what I've seen of it, is the Clinton Global Initiative--yes, I'm praising Bill Clinton, who is beginning something here that has the potential to be truly wonderful--which is essentially all about using globalization to do good. (Good article on that, btw, on the cover of the October Atlantic; unfortunately, it's subscriber-only.)

A good place to begin is to read the first chapter of the Communist Manifesto. No, really. Marx understands the forces of self-interest and the anti-cooperative spirit that drive capitalism to become global, even though he underestimates its power to quell workers' discontent.

Sorry to butt in -- I read this blog a lot but rarely join in the commenting.

I've recently returned from living in Cambodia, and it changed a lot. Before I listened to all the people who talked about how terrible it is that we outsource our factories, and they pay the workers substantially less than here, etc.

Why would they pay American wages when the cost of living there is so much lower? Paying them what WE think is fair would only inflate the economy and cause real hardship on the community.

If we really want to help we should push for safe work conditions, but the long hours are a cultural norm there, the low wages are higher than average, and all the girls I knew that had worked in the Gap factory outside Phnom Penh thought it was great compared to any other work they'd do.

We westerners need to get out more to see that we have some of the most expensive cost of living in the world, and in a lot of places $1 a day is almost impossible to live on, but (this is just me estimating here, not factual data) in order to thrive you'd only need maybe $2-3 a day.

And I think globalization is a great thing where it refers not to global homoginization, but to thinking on a worldwide level instead of a national one. God seems awefully centered around 'the nations.'

I wonder if some of the Christian fear of or opposition to "globablization" comes from the dispensationalist teaching of a "one world gov't" and the mark of the beast.

Of course, what's ironic about their view of things, is that if it's prophesied, shouldn't they "want it to happen"?

Globalization it seems to me is neither the horrific thing the antis make it out to be nor the great thing its supporters believe it to be. As with all technology and economic "advances", they cut both ways. For every good that comes of it, there are an equal number of bad things. It is reasonable to fear the hegemony of everyplace in the world looking like every suburban downtown in America, while also praise the raising out of poverty that happens as a result, which does happen but not nearly to the degree that we hope or expect.
And the comment about Marx is dead-on. It needs to be emphasized that globalizing companies have only their financial self-interest in mind. Some are more sensitive to moving out of one country to an even lower wage country than others, but it is parasitic in many ways and destructive in many ways as well. The really dark side, is that there is something to all this that thrives on slavery, or indentured servitude, which comprises more people now than at any time in history (in numbers, if not percentage, recognizing more people live now than any other time...)and is practiced or reinforced, directly or indirectly, by chocolatiers, coffee growers, diamond miners, agricultural enterprises in the rainforests and the occasional Nike sweatshop or Paris Hilton clothier. People follow the work, legally or illegally, and either way they can get into a situation where they are indebted to their "overlords" far beyond their capacity to repay. National Geographic did an issue on this about a year ago. It is in this arena particularly where Christians should oppose and seek to reform and/or stop some of the effects of globalization and or rampant laissez-faire capitalism.
Peace!
Seth

Hi again all,

Everything that's been said above is true, from the phenomenal capacity of the globalized economy to draw people out of poverty (300 million in India and counting) to its horrible tendency towards slavery and exploitation. As far as I can see, globalization itself isn't good or bad; it's just inevitable as communications and transport improve.

One thing hasn't been mentioned yet, though, and that's that the globalized economy still operates under certain rules. Countries still decide how much they're going to tax imports of different products and commodities from different places, for instance. So, within the EU, there's now supposed to be no import taxes on anything coming from anywhere in the EU. NAFTA and CAFTA and such things are aiming towards similar goals.

This is all well and good in theory: it allows countries to open up their markets at a rate that's more or less manageable for their domestic economies and/or electorates. The problem is that the rules are sort of umpired by the World Trade Organization, which is set up in such a way that power rests very firmly in the hands of Western governments who have all the money (rather than being "one country, one vote", as in UN organizations, the voting system in the WTO means that the weight of your vote is dependent on the size of your contributions to it), and we have an awful lot of leverage on third world govts while they have very little on us.

So, for instance, we can demand that they lower barriers to imports of excess European wheat while at the same time taxing their imports to us, thus being old-skool protectionist when it suits us and hyper-cool globalist when it suits us. If they don't do what we want, we just don't trade with them, or don't give them aid or lend them money. Annoyingly, and through both their faults and ours, many countries in Africa still need our aid, so they have to do as we say.

So as far as I can see, the worst thing about globalization is that it's not really globalized yet. The West uses its power to fix the markets so we get to sell and they have to buy.

As for the thing about McDonalds - that's a cool statistic and I don't doubt it for a second, but considering the shenannigans (spelling?) Russia likes to play with our gas supply I couldn't honestly say I'm certain it's going to be true forever...

IANA-economist, though! Please somebody correct me if I'm talking nonsense =o)

Globalization isn't bad.

I agree that it is just a common gatheringplace for all the 60s hippies who oppose war, capital, and anything that doesn't involve living off the land by fertilizing one's 'organic' garden with their own feces. All you have to do is look at the people who protest the WTO and the G8 summits.

I lived next to a "sweat shop" (el cupido) owned by some french business in the city of Nindiri, Nicaragua for about 4 months. I wish there were more of them. I hope Nike and others offshore more production to poor countries. It brings money into their economy and does wonderful things. Granted there are abuses, but those relative abuses occur everywhere (inc. the U.S.). Most of the people who worked at El Cupido were just glad to not be selling bananas or tortillas at the bus stop on the side of the Highway.

Thanks everyone,

All this brings to mind debates I've heard before about this topic, although I didn't catch the term "globalization" in those debates, I guess. In particular, I've heard of the irony of well-meaning liberals in the U.S. protesting against offshore industry, since it "exploits workers", and their protests resulting in the loss of needed jobs for the offshore workers who didn't feel exploited at all, but just felt employed.

Like everything else, I'm sure there's a spectrum here, and there are great abuses and great stories of poverty reduction in the globalized world.

I think I've been confused by how black and white the issue can be painted - like it's a no-brainer that Christians should stand against globalization, and if they don't, they have no interest in the Biblical commands for justice.